But even as regards the trials there is wide divergence among the biographical school. For instance, Mr. Charles Stanley Lester, an ex-clergyman of Milwaukee, in his interesting work The Historic Jesus, [34] entirely rejects the Sanhedrim trial, and likewise the gospel account of the Pilate trial, but finds "probable history" in the view that the priests privately persuaded Pilate to condemn Jesus on their accusation without any trial. [35] Again, the anonymous author of The Four Gospels as Historical Records, [36] an eminently keen, searching, and candid critic, rejects alike the Judas story, the trial before the Sanhedrim, and the trial before Pilate, [37] as he does most of the other items of the gospel history, yet throughout seems to take for granted the historicity of the "Great Teacher," the "Master," never even raising that issue save in protesting that he has absolutely nothing to say against him. [38] So completely does he destroy the whole narrative, indeed, that he can hardly be said to maintain the thesis of historicity, but he never calls it in question: he merely destroys the biography. Mr. Lester, on the other hand, confidently rejects a hundred details as myth, claiming that he presents the gospels "relieved of the drapery of mythology and set free from all dogmatic fictions"; [39] and yet no less confidently affirms a hundred "undoubted" things, in a manner that almost outgoes M. Loisy. If, faced by such procedures, the critical reader asks upon what grounds the historical personality is accepted, he gets from the able anonymous writer no answer, and from Mr. Lester, in effect, only the answer that the teachings which appeal to him in the gospels are self-certified as coming from the "Jesus" in whom he believes, while the others are dismissed by him as inconsistent with his conception. As a rule, the negative criticism is soundly reasoned; the constructive is purely arbitrary. Yet Mr. Lester is an amiable and--apart from his quaint animosity towards "the Semitic mind" [40]--a temperate critic, warmly concerned for historic truth and loyally opposed to all kinds of priestcraft, ancient and modern. What we must ask from such critics is that they should bring to bear on their biographical assumption the same critical method that they bring to bear on the multitude of details which strike them as obviously unhistorical. Rejecting miracles and self-contradictory narrative, they affirm a miraculous and self-contradictory Person. That conception too must be analysed.